The simpler example was also *inclusive* of charged particles, it simply included *fewer of them*!

Click to expand...

Wow - now you imagine actual numbers of charged particles stated in that section, Michael!
But you are right - he starts with zero charged particles (and no uncharged particles, i.e. a vacuum) and that is fewer than 1 or many .

I noticed that you ignored this little 'prediction' of your idea.
Prediction is in quotes because your idea is scientifically useless since it has no mathematics or numbers behind it and makes no real predictions!

ETA: This needs more explanation.Michael's idea is basically Oliver Manual's insanely wrong idea (Michael's site: Dr. Oliver Manuel was wrong!), i.e. the Sun sorts plasma into layers by atomic mass + the Sun is powered by a neutron star.Michael removed the neutron star.Michael removed the power source of the Sun !

Michael places all of the hydrogen in the Sun on the outside of the Sun. So there can be no fusion of hydrogen powering the Sun. But we detect the neutrinos from that fusion.

Michael's idea includes that within his imaginary solid iron surface are layers of even heavier elements, e.g. cobalt, osmium, gold, lead, etc. According to his logic, these will be solid (otherwise they would melt his imaginary solid iron surface). For example cobalt has a boiling point of 3200 K. So if these layers fill up the Sun then its mass will be much greater than 1 solar mass. Thus the Sun is hollow.

According to his fantasies though these layers will be plasma and his imaginary solid iron surface will magically remain solid. In that case Michael needs to support his idea by calculating the mass of the Sun. This will be a bit of a problem for Michael since his idea is scientifically useless (not even a hypothesis!). The big problem that for Michael will be explaining how there is plasma without a central power source.

If this is the assertion that MR is impossible because it creates monopoles this is wrong and silly since you agree that MR is possible in plasma and you have stated no way to magically stop this imaginary creation of monopoles.

Wow - now you imagine actual numbers of charged particles stated in that section, Michael!

Click to expand...

I "imagined" nothing. He used the term 'current'. Current takes the form of a *charged particle in motion*.

FYI, if it were a couple of *wires*, they wouldn't move, so your analogy falls flat on it's face. Assuming they actually did *move*, any person that knows anything about solid state physics already knows that's called *magnetic attraction* in solids, and *induction* in solids.

But you are right - he starts with zero charged particles

Click to expand...

No. He starts with two *currents* flowing through a vacuum. Think in terms of *two rivers of plasma* flowing through the vacuum.

(and no uncharged particles,

Click to expand...

There goes your "wire" claim. You're right, he never said squat about *uncharged* particles in the vacuum, so your wire claim is totally bogus.

Are you ever going to quote me where *I* (not you) claimed that the sun was hollow, or are you just going to let everyone see how incapable of telling the truth you are?

Ya know....

Topics change but haters are all alike in terms of the *behaviors*. They never actually *read* or take the time to actually understand the materials under discussion, or respond to the actual material itself. They don't understand it, and like you they absolutely *refuse* to educate themselves. They're belligerent and ignorant. In your particular case you've taken to the internet stalker category as well.

When oh when can we expect you to read a textbook on MHD theory oh great clairvoyant physicist?

When oh when will I see a quote from my lips about a hollow sun oh great protector of 'truth'?

When are you going to read a textbook on MHD theory RC? This is the question all haters refuse to answer and the question you have refused to answer for over two years now. When can I expect you to stop living in ignorance and fear and actually answer the question?

FYI: Your denial of Somov's section on MR in vacuum does not excuse you, Michael!
In my practical example of MR in vacuum (wires plus a vacuum chamber) the wires generate the currents that produce the magnetic field. There are no free charged particles. It is a vacuum chamber !

Actually Somov starts with two *idealized currents* flowing through a vacuum. No mention of wires, beams of charged particles or even plasma.

Think of the idiocy of claiming that reading plasma physics textbooks means that you understand about plasma, Michael, when you make an ignorant statement like that .
Plasmas contain equal amounts of electrons and ions. Flowing plasma are not current just like moving rocks are not electrical currents.

FYI: Your denial of Somov's section on MR in vacuum does not excuse you, Michael!

Click to expand...

You're the one in denial of the two *currents* the Somov places inside the vacuum, and the *movement* of the particles in that vacuum. I'm in denial of nothing. You're the one trying to stuff the term "wire" into the vacuum, where none is stated nor required.

In my practical example of MR in vacuum (wires plus a vacuum chamber) the wires generate the currents that produce the magnetic field. There are no free charged particles. It is a vacuum chamber !

Click to expand...

In *solids*, the terms that you're struggling to find are apparently *magnetic attraction* (with or without the movement of matter), and/or induction. You have not described *magnetic reconnection* which is *by definition* a process involving *plasma* and the acceleration of plasma particles via the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy.

You really do need to read a textbook on plasma physics to comprehend plasma physics. You're "I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express' routine isn't cutting it I'm afraid.

You and Clinger *forgot* plasma. You *forgot* to read a book on plasma physics. You *forgot* to bother educating yourselves to the topic of discussion (in this case plasma physics), so you have no idea what you're talking about.

No, it doesn't happen "away from' the currents, it happens *to* the currents! The currents *move*. That's what you and Clinger cannot do without a charged particle to your name.

Pointed out here on 24th October 2013.
Pointed out on JREF a lot!

Click to expand...

It was pointed out a JREF that not a single hater has clue what they're talking about. The fact you all sat there and claimed Clinger created "magnetic reconnection" in a vacuum devoid of any charged particles demonstrated that point in flying colors. It also demonstrated that you're personally quite clueless by choice.

And as anyone with basic mathematical skills can see Magnetic Reconnection by W.D. Clinger starts with Maxwell's equations and no plasma or charged particles (4 idealized currents) and gets MR.

Click to expand...

When can I expect to see Clinger's nonsense *published*? Never! Clinger *excluded* charged particles from his vacuum whereas Somov *included* them. Whereas Somov move the charged particles as a result of reconnection, Clinger just has a stupid Null point that does exactly nothing.

Actually Somov starts with two *idealized currents* flowing through a vacuum. No mention of wires, beams of charged particles or even plasma.

Click to expand...

The two currents moved too, or did you just ignore that point entirely?

Somov's example is consistent with the WIKI definition of reconnection. It's a process *in plasma*, that results in plasma movement.

You apparently read the term 'vacuum' and that's all you read or understood.

Clinger absolutely *did not* start or include any plasma, nor did he get any plasma movement out of his silly *NULL*! Clinger's stuff is just pure NULL point, empty space nonsense on a stick.

We're all here waiting with baited breath for you to tell us when we can expect you to pickup and read a real textbook on plasma physics RC. You certainly don't cut it as the clairvoyant physicist.

This inane demand again, Michael!
I could reply with: When are you going to read and understand a textbook on plasma, Michael?

The demand is inane because we are not discussing MHD theory.
Michael:

Can you understand the inanity of a demand to read an irrelevant textbook?
​

The demand is inane because you have not even been able to understand the English in in a textbook on MHD theory, Michael. Reconnection in vacuum means there is a vacuum and reconnection happens in it !

The demand is inane because reading a textbook is not even close to understanding the subject of the textbook.
I could read a textbook on MHD theory and have a good chance at understanding it because I have the prerequisite (but rusty) skills needed to understand it:

Apparently you are obsessed with lying about me - I read the crank papers that you were a coauthor of and contributed an obvious fantasy about solar flares being mountain ranges.

Click to expand...

If you had read and understood the work, you wouldn't need to resort to pitiful childish insults, and you wouldn't be rambling on about hollow suns or thermodynamic problems that simply do not exist in any published paper I've been involved in.

You have published *no* papers in astronomy, nor have you read a single textbook related to the topic of plasma physics, in spite of the fact that 99+ percent of the universe is in the plasma state. You have some *fantasy* about being experts on topics that you simply no nothing about, and have no desire to learn about.

...snipped totally embarrassing ignorance from Michael and the usual insults...

Click to expand...

Michael thinks that the currents in Somov's 'Reconnection in vacuum' move. But as anyone can see the position of the currents are 2 dots on his 2-D diagram and do not move. Somov changes the amount of current.
ETA: That is wrong - I am thinking of Magnetic Reconnection by W.D. Clinger explanation of MR in a vacuum.

No, it doesn't happen "away from' the currents, it happens *to* the currents! The currents *move*.

Click to expand...

That is definitely wrong as Somov's caption states.
The MR in a vacuum does not move the currents. It is the displacement of the currents that causes the MR. No displacement of the currents, no MR.

IOW: Care to explain the phrase 'the final state after they have been drawn nearer by a driven displacement' for us oh great master of the English language?
I would say it means that a displacement (driven by something) has caused the currents to get closer and change the magnetic field into its final state.

At the end of the chapter, Somov mentions the effect that the changing magnetic field due to the changing current would have on charge particles. He then goes onto 'Reconnection in plasma'.

Please tell me that you do not even know what a vacuum chamber is, Michael!
In my practical example of MR in vacuum (wires plus a vacuum chamber) the wires generate the currents that produce the magnetic field. There are no free charged particles. It is a vacuum chamber !

Michael, you have the non-scientific requirement that things be detected in the lab before they can exist, e.g. dark matter. This is non-scientific because it does not exist in science. Science allows things to exist when their existence can be deduced from observations and the laws of physics, e.g. quarks have never been detected in the lab.
What if we follow your little fantasy though?
The materials (protons and electrons compressed into neutrons) that neutron stars should be made of have never been detected in the lab thus neutron stars (according to you) cannot exist. They are "mythical sky entities"! In this case it is hypocritical of you to cite a theory that you cannot believe in.

A neutron star has a very high surface gravity of up to 100,000,000,000 times that of Earth. Add a solar plasma and that plasma is plated onto the neutron star !

A neutron star has a very high surface gravity of up to 100,000,000,000 times that of Earth. Add a solar plasma and as it is plated onto the surface of the neutron star , is crushed to fusion temperatures and pressures thus blowing up the Sun .

A neutron star has a very strong magnetic field and spins. Add a solar plasma and we have a pulsar. The Sun is not emitting gigantic jets of electromagnetic radiation consistent with a pulsar .

His figure 1 ("The top section is a "running difference" image of the Sun's iron-rich sub-surface
from the Trace satellite using a 171 Å filter sensitive to Fe (IX) and Fe (X) emissions.") is just physically wrong. He either included it without thinking about the physics involved or is ignorant of a simple bit of physics: The TRACE instrument 171 A passband is collecting light from >160,000 K plasma in the transition zone, i.e. above the photosphere. Ditto for the bottom 4 images in the 195 A passband (>500,000 K plasma).Errors in Micheal's site XIV (no mountain ranges in TRACE RD movie)!

The paper was written in 2006 when the solution to the solar neutrino problem (neutrino oscillation) had been known for 5 years. But Manuel states that as a problem in his conclusion based on a citation to a 1988 book!

It's actually an *insane* request that you expect me to believe your statements about plasma physics *rather than* the author of MHD theory, as well as every other published author on the topic.

It's *insane* of you to keep slamming your head against a tank, hoping to win a tank fight *completely unarmed*. I have no idea why you keep doing that, but you keep doing it.

Imagine a discussion involving evolutionary theory where one side suggests the person read an actual textbook on the topic, and the other side calls it an 'inane demand'? Education is not an 'inane demand'. It's actually an *expectation* before you start attacking individuals in cyberspace over topics you know *nothing* about.

I could reply with:......

Click to expand...

...."You're right, I probably should go educate myself on this topic." But *noooooooooooooo*! You go right back to pure denial, and pure personal attack.

Case in point....

The demand is inane because you have not even been able to understand the English in in a textbook on MHD theory, Michael. Reconnection in vacuum means there is a vacuum and reconnection happens in it !

Click to expand...

His English was quite clear when he added currents and made them move RC. You're grasp of English ends at the doorstep of denial of those currents and the movement of those currents. You therefore keep parroting the term "vacuum" and pretending you're the clairvoyant physicist.

As far as I know you, Michael, do not even know calculus

Click to expand...

Yawn. More denial on your part since I explained to you that I took calculus in High School. Denial and personal attacks are your only self defense mechanisms apparently, especially since you've taken 'education' off the table.

Unlike me, you and Clinger ended your EM education in solid state physics, and Clinger's textbook never mentioned the term 'magnetic reconnection' according to Clinger himself. Clinger left out the *physics* part of *plasma physics*, specifically he left out the charged particles. The error isn't always mathematical in nature, and that is again one of those points that you simply ignore.

The prerequisites that allow understanding of a textbook are only the first step.

Click to expand...

You won't even pick up a textbook, so what do you know? Your claims don't even pass the Wiki smell test RC:

Your Laurel and Hardy routine at JREF ignored the highlighted *requirements* of 'reconnection'.

Don't you think that everyone here is starting to question your personal integrity when you refuse to even tell us when we might expect you to read a textbook on plasma physics before trying to debate the topic in cyberspace?

It's actually an *insane* request that you expect me to believe your statements about plasma physics *rather than* the author of MHD theory, as well as every other published author on the topic.
...snipped usual rant and insults...
...sipped insane P) link to an article about MR in plasma...

Click to expand...

It is *insane* of you to lie about what this author of MHD theory, as well as every other published author on the topic, wrote without backing it up, Michael.

But as anyone can see the position of the currents are 2 dots on his 2-D diagram and do not move.

Click to expand...

As anyone can see the position of the currents and they *do* move!

Somov changes the amount of current.

Click to expand...

Explain that caption and how they are drawn nearer without movement again?

Get a grip RC. You're just pulling these false claims out of your back pocket. Go read a read textbook and then we'll talk. Right now you're just making a complete fool out of yourself and you don't have a hater posse to save you from yourself here.